You know what, it's so, so unfair to say that you don't like how I play and you don't like me, but you won't tell me why. I'm guilty for what? Quoting ash without keeping the whole quote in? Not being okay with him accusing me of personally attacking him?
You asked for it. Here why I find you dislikable in this game.
Here's what I'm thinking.
Ichi was the first person to actually claim a PR. If he is scum, then the add on is Traitor Knows Mafia/SK.
If this is the case, then it's reasonable to assume that Ichi is the Traitor, since he would then have the most information and be in the best position to make a logical claim.
If Ichi was the Traitor, then he would know that we have either Column 3 or Row 3.
If we have Column 3, Psychologist is a believable claim since from a Neutral point of view with the other claims, we could have Row 4.
But if we have Row 3, there is in fact no logical fake claim, and a Psychologist claim would quickly be found out against the three real claims.
If he was instead the SK, he would know we have either Column 2, Column 3 or Row 1. This would make Psychologist a reasonable claim for scum trying to mess up ICs, but not so good for a SK trying to stay alive.
So if Ichi is scum then he didn't have enough information to know that his claim wouldn't immediately be caught out.
If, on the other hand, silver is scum and knew that the Mafia knew the Traitor, then he'd know we have either Row 4 or Column 2, neither of which would immediately out a fakeclaimed JK.
In summary, Ichi didn't have enough information to make a safe (at least safe enough to not be immediately outed) fakeclaim, while silver did.
Vote: silverspawn
This was the first thing that frustrated me. why? because the presentation is lacking so much. you just write "this and that and stuff and because of that it's things" and expect anyone else to grind through the setup to understand it. compare that to ash's posts, which explain everything in detail, post a copy of the setup, highlight parts, and generally make it so everyone has an easy time following them. with your post, you are just forcing us to invest a considerable amount of time into understanding your points, instead of investing time yourself to explain them better.
Okay cool. Ask for more detail and I'll provide it. I didn't realise people would have a hard time understanding it.
ash, that's a big wall of posts for a very wrong conclusion.
Based on this, I believe there is only one scenario where Ichimaru Gin fakeclaims Psychologist, and that is as the Mafia Traitor in a TKM setup.
False.
If Ichi was a Mafia Traitor in a TKM setup, he knew that the Town PRs are either Commuter, JK and Detective (Column 3) or BP, JK and Bodyguard (Row 3). In the case of Column 3, which we now know is the real one if Ichi is lying, then he's fine, Psychologist is a safe claim.
But in the case of Row 3, Psychologist would be an absolutely disastrous claim. The four claims would then be BP, JK, Bodyguard and Psychologist, and there are no possible setups which have a Psychologist and two of the others - the only possible setup with these four claims is Row 3, which excludes Psychologist.
So a Traitor in TKM would absolutely not claim Psychologist without more information about what other roles are present.
ash arguing otherwise is extremely scummy.
And this. As I just said (and said before), ash's setup analysis posts were great. you don't acknowledge that at all. If I were ash, this line alone
ash, that's a big wall of posts for a very wrong conclusion.
Would have hurt my feelings. You can argue all you want that it was directed at his posts, not at him, but that doesn't change the fact that it would have legitimately hurt me. Why is the "very" in there. Why do you have to reference his posts as "a big wall of text". That's just so incredibly inappropriate. and than the last line:
ash arguing otherwise is extremely scummy
just comes off as really arrogant. and towards ash, that's saying something. Honestly, I think this is almost blatant disrespect for his skill. If you posted such an answer to one of my posts, I would not be offended, because I'm new at mafia. I think it's comparable to when I post a game analysis of dominion and then you come and say "false."
And to clarify, I'm not saying that you need to be super careful not to be insulting every time you disagree with ash on something mafia related. Don't pull this out of context. It all depends on the specific case. You could have said something like "Mh... I don't think that's right. If .... " and then made your point. And for the last line, you could have said "I actually think that ash arguing otherwise is extremely scummy." That would have conveyed an equal amount of information. And ash didn't even address you before, you really have no excuse for being so rude.
Okay, I can see where you're coming from. I was admittedly a little abrupt and I guess that came from being frustrated at not being understood after I think multiple attempts to explain myself. I guess it was also from the fact that ash had quoted my post, said "I like this type of thinking", and then basically dismissed everything I said.
So it was a 1 in 5 chance he gets caught immediately.
Wrong. In the even of a massclaim Today, which had already been proposed, he had a 1 in 2 chance of being automatically lynched Today, and a 1 in 2 chance of being part of a 1 scum in 3. That's a 1 in 3 chance of surviving the Day. Scum don't willingly give themselves a 1 in 3 chance of surviving.
same thing again. start an answer with "wrong."
Yeah okay, he was in my mind wrong. I could have beaten around the bush about it and maybe I should learn that with certain people you have to.
I am arguing that, AT THE TIME OF HIS CLAIM, he made the safest claim he could if he is a Traitor in TKM.
Wrong. The safest claim would be VT. Another safer option would be withhold claiming entirely, especially since (if I remember the timing rightly) I had already proposed a massclaim and probably seemed fairly likely to claim willingly.
Okay, I should have written out "safest PR fake claim he could make" instead of just claim. But now you are just making arguments to try to belittle me, and I don't appreciate it. You knew exactly what I mean when I wrote it in the context of my entire post. But you pulled out a single line and make a statement such as yours to try and make me look stupid and idiotic. Thanks.
Civility remember. Don't try to make things personal when they're not.
My point is valid - if scum he didn't have to claim a PR, and he certainly didn't have to claim when he did.
And this. What happened here is, ash posted something, he was slightly unspecific about a small thing that was clear from the context anyway, you are quoting this part and giving a response, completely unnecessary in my mind.
I disagree. And okay I guess I disagree with more of the post than I quoted. I firmly believe that if Ichi was scum he would have either claimed VT since there was no safe PR claim at that time, or waited for other claims before claiming himself. ash said (paraphrased) "He took a gamble by claiming a PR and Psychologist was his best option" and yeah I only quoted the second half of that so maybe I should have said, "That would have been a really terrible gamble given that he would have had no good PRs to claim and he would have had much better options than to take that unnecessary gamble. So even if I acknowledged the part I didn't quote, my response still would have effectively been the same.
I like ash's response though. I think it's just as offensive as it is appropriate here, and this part
You knew exactly what I mean when I wrote it in the context of my entire post. But you pulled out a single line and make a statement such as yours to try and make me look stupid and idiotic. Thanks.
is just nailing it. That's exactly what happened.
That's not what happened at all, and I take issue with you and ash presuming to know what my intentions are. I did not intentionally take ash out of context, and I still don't believe I did. And I certainly did not try to make him look stupid and idiotic.
And then... the first thing in your response is "Civility remember".
Yep. I can't remember if you were involved in Chocolate Factory, but basically I had this big argument with ash in which he repeatedly said I was personally attacking him, which I wasn't at all, and ended up making me feel like I couldn't say anything against him because he would accuse me of being personal if he did. So what I was thinking was, "Here we go again". In Chocolate Factory it was ash who brought up civility and seemed to be going in that direction again. In pointing out civility I was making the point that civility problems have tended to occur because people have wrongly assumed they are being personally attacked, not because they are actually being personally attacked.
Just. why. i... omfg. i hate this kind of arguing. you are making a comment that's unnecessary, and easily offensive, ash answers in an honest way, and you immediately pull the civility card, just because his post happens to be more outside of the civility pledge. I actually respect people who don't try to hide themselves behind the pledge by smoothing their syntax in a way that avoids stepping over specific rules, but instead just say what they want to say. because, whether or not a post is "legal" according to a stupid civility pledge doesn't tell you anything about how offending it really is. you can hurt others plenty without stepping beyond the pledge, and in fact, I think you did that several times. Hiding behind the pledge after making these kinds of posts is just pathetic. And I'm sorry, but that's the only word that honestly reflects my feelings here.
I don't want to grind through the whole discussion, that would take a long time, let's just say that there is more.
But then, after the discussion, you are like "hey, I didn't do anything wrong, how can you side with ash here?" I already said this, I'll say it again, this is absurd. If someone is having a heated argument, how likely do you think it is that he doesn't consider himself having acted morally superior? I'm almost 100% sure that ash thought that. and yet, did he try to influence us into disliking you? no. he didn't.
Moral superiority didn't cross my mind. I simply felt like I was once again being wrongfully accused of being personal, and expressing that I'm not okay with that.
Also, why are you forcing me to write this. What good could possibly come from me explaining why exactly I don't like you. I was just being honest, and it was a fact relevant to the game. Saying "I don't like you" is not an Insult, it's Honesty.
I guess we disagree on that, but I'm not going to make a big deal out of it.
I don't back down from discussions though. You requested an answer, so here it is.
I really appreciate it. We disagree on a fair bit, but that is so much better than simply saying you don't like me and leaving it at that.
Author
Topic: Mafia 51: Silo (Wool) Mafia - Serial Killer (ashersky) wins! (Read 174341 times)